Covid19

[Mark W]

11 hours ago, Ali C said:

I’m sure mrna is safe in humans...

It's been used for various things since 1989 - it's not quite the instant new wonderdrug that the mRNA vaccines are being portrayed as.

8 hours ago, MadManMike said:

Nobody can tell me what I should do, it's my choice.

Not that I'm saying it's the same thing, but that was exactly the line of response people used when seatbelt laws were brought in in the UK. That was the biggest argument against it, but the second was people saying that they felt that they could be more dangerous in the event of a crash.

Just on the vaccination passport thing, the concept of requiring vaccinations for travel to certain countries is nothing new, and hasn't been for decades. Again, not saying they're the same thing, but it isn't some new plot - it was and is standard in many countries for various diseases.

In terms of this whole idea of it being some huge overarching plot to enslave us all, it just doesn't add up. The government haven't even been able to build a railway line they've spent billions of £s on and dedicated over a decade to. They seem to be f**king inept at most things, and largely populated by opportunistic people who happen to have either been born with the right name, have enough money in the family or went to the right schools.

It's just another example of Hanlon's Razor to me - "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It's a massive public health crisis, and unfortunately the people we have in power are f**king inept at dealing with most things, let alone the largest public health crisis in our lifetimes. I don't agree with Boris on many things, but I do when he said that Matt Hancock is "totally f**king hopeless". It's not really surprising that we haven't got a great track record of dealing with it with people like Johnson, Hancock and Cummings playing substantial roles in how things are done. 

Just by way of a comparison, I think it's generally acknowledged New Zealand smashed the shit out of dealing with the virus (although even there people called for their PM to resign for her handling of it because they said that it was an over-reach). They have a smaller population so naturally it's easier, but the early and decisive steps they took stopped it in its tracks. Just look at the system they created for paying workers in businesses that were forced to close temporarily - not hard, but something the UK government totally f**ked, and continues to totally f**k. We could have done so much more in the early days of the pandemic but politically it was viewed as too damaging so we didn't, and everything from those decisions has cascaded and led us to where we are today. If they hadn't kept the borders fully open as long as they did, we'd have had fewer cases. If they'd enforced isolation/quarantine for arriving travellers months earlier than they did, we'd have fewer cases. I mean they said they were specifically protecting care homes, then forced them to accept a load of patients from hospitals without even testing people. There have been so many mis-steps along the way that mean we're in the shit situation we're in now, and that's why I just don't believe it's some Machiavellian plot. 

Just to be clear as well, I don't particularly agree with the vaccine passport idea. I don't really have much of an issues with the vaccines themselves (they were given a massive headstart in terms of creating a vaccine by getting the gene sequencing for the virus back in January 2020 so they knew what they were dealing with, and to me it just shows what's possible when pharma and governments all exclusively turn their focus on one problem and then throw unlimited time and cash at it), but I can see why not everyone would want to get involved. I'd definitely put it in a different category to masking/social distancing. While I don't think vaccinations should be mandatory, I can see why masking/distancing was/is in some places as those are simple, proven, effective, non-harmful ways of limiting spread that some people weren't willing to do until it was turned into a law. There was that chat before it was turned into law that it required people to just "use their common sense", but that clearly doesn't work. To use a local example, during lockdown a minibus full of mixed households from Cheltenham turned up at Storey Arms to walk up the Brecon Beacons. "Common sense" wasn't at play there. You f**k yourself on the Beacons, mountain rescue has to come and get you (not an uncommon thing there), that then immediately means you've got X amount of other people on that rescue team potentially exposed to it who then have to isolate until they're tested, while their close contacts will also have to isolate. That's just one possible aspect of it that could lead to causing issues for others. A lot of people don't seem capable of thinking of anyone or anything beyond themselves, and this sort of situation isn't one that gets resolved with that kind of thinking.

[MadManMike]

35 minutes ago, Mark W said:

Not that I'm saying it's the same thing, but that was exactly the line of response people used when seatbelt laws were brought in in the UK. That was the biggest argument against it, but the second was people saying that they felt that they could be more dangerous in the event of a crash.

Just on the vaccination passport thing, the concept of requiring vaccinations for travel to certain countries is nothing new, and hasn't been for decades. Again, not saying they're the same thing, but it isn't some new plot - it was and is standard in many countries for various diseases.

In terms of this whole idea of it being some huge overarching plot to enslave us all, it just doesn't add up.

The seatbelt one is interesting and a good comparison. I've been thinking about how to reply to it and I'm torn - I can see why it's a good idea to make them compulsory, but I can see the argument for not enforcing it too. I'd say there's more reasons to wear a belt than there is to take a Covid jab.

My issue with the vaccine and the whole pandemic is how exaggerated it's become. I haven't run figures from the ONS for a few months, but last time I checked it was 0.001% of the population had died "from Covid" (So this includes all the people that tested positive up to 28 days before they died, not necessarily actually died from Covid) - let's be realistic, that number is tiny. I'm not saying Covid doesn't exist or that it's not bad, but that's surely a similar figure to the annual flu we have that wipes out some of the elderly and vulnerable?

The flu jab is encouraged, but I don't have 5 texts and 3 voicemails telling me the NHS "needs to discuss my plans". I don't have to prove I've had it to go for a drink after midnight.

I don't look at the vaccine as a conspiracy to microchip us all etc, we do that with our phones already, I just don't see the point in risking any side effects from a vaccine that hasn't been properly tested yet. I've had Covid already and possibly have it now, as my partner is in bed with it as I type (And she's had the jab, might I add!), I beat it with fairly minor symptoms last year and this time around I just have a headache and sore throat, it's (so far) not even as bad as a common cold. If we assume that the vaccine works, in a month or so everyone that wants it will have it and folks like my mother and grandmother already have both, so accidental transmission wouldn't be such a disaster as it is now - the only people at risk will be people like me, who don't want the jab. It's not even like having the jab stops you passing it on, it literally just protects you a little bit (Allegedly).

I'm not anti-vax, I went to Malaysia last year and had vaccines for that, because the diseases I could potentially get there WOULD kill me, almost no question. Those vaccines are also decades old, tried and tested. If it's proven to be very effective in the years to come, I'll have it, but so far I'm seeing double jabbed people still getting as ill as I did last year, still passing it to others and having the added pleasure of side effects for a few days after each jab.

If the jab works and everyone has been offered it, there should be no reason for anyone to pressure someone into having it. I see "selfish" and "murderer" banded around on Facebook a lot, usually by people that think only the un-vaxxed are passing it around.

[JT!]

15 hours ago, Ali C said:

What’s wrong with just getting a negative test before traveling? 
 

I think it’s discriminatory, mainly for those who can’t take it for medical reasons but also to those who don’t want to take it, I worry it’s the start of bigger issues of control.

Ivermectin is a drug that’s been around for decades, has proven to be safe and showed real promise of being effective to treat Covid in humans. Sadly for some reason that escapes me any talk of Ivermectin was censored and funding cut (which limits legit papers and opens the doors for bias)  I’m sure mrna is safe in humans but I’m not volunteering for human testing without being paid.

Fair point, I guess they don't want the hassle of testing every single person twice on a round trip. But ultimately governments simply don't want unvaccinated people in their country.

If someone can't take it for medial reasons then fair enough, although I'm not entirely sure there are many medical reasons not to get the vaccine. End of the day an unvaccinated person is someone who is much more likely to get infected and spread it to others, I don't think it's unreasonable for a government to limit entry into their country because they aren't vaccinated against a virus that's currently causing a world wide pandemic. No one should be made the get the vaccine, and no one should have unreasonable limits placed on them because they're unvaccinated, but international travel is probably one of the few things I can see as reasonable, especially when it wouldn't necessarily be our government to put those limits in place, but the government of the country you'd intend to visit.

Also the issue with any meds that you'd take them when you get covid, they wouldn't prevent it. That's probably why there's little research into those types of drugs, it's far more effective to put the money and time into a vaccine than just having everyone get sick and doing their best with whatever drugs may or may not work as they come in. Reducing the spread is far more important, especially with a virus where the fatality rate is relatively low.

[JT!]

1 hour ago, MadManMike said:

let's be realistic, that number is tiny. I'm not saying Covid doesn't exist or that it's not bad, but that's surely a similar figure to the annual flu we have that wipes out some of the elderly and vulnerable?

Realistically, it's not. Multiply 0.001 by 5 and a half million and you get a much bigger number. And then we're only talking about potential deaths, not people who're seriously ill, or will experience life long health issues.

[Ali C]

31 minutes ago, JT! said:

Fair point, I guess they don't want the hassle of testing every single person twice on a round trip. But ultimately governments simply don't want unvaccinated people in their country.

If someone can't take it for medial reasons then fair enough, although I'm not entirely sure there are many medical reasons not to get the vaccine. End of the day an unvaccinated person is someone who is much more likely to get infected and spread it to others, I don't think it's unreasonable for a government to limit entry into their country because they aren't vaccinated against a virus that's currently causing a world wide pandemic. No one should be made the get the vaccine, and no one should have unreasonable limits placed on them because they're unvaccinated, but international travel is probably one of the few things I can see as reasonable, especially when it wouldn't necessarily be our government to put those limits in place, but the government of the country you'd intend to visit.

Also the issue with any meds that you'd take them when you get covid, they wouldn't prevent it. That's probably why there's little research into those types of drugs, it's far more effective to put the money and time into a vaccine than just having everyone get sick and doing their best with whatever drugs may or may not work as they come in. Reducing the spread is far more important, especially with a virus where the fatality rate is relatively low.

I guess my “beef” is the thought of being forced to take a drug that hasn’t passed the test of time, I have no issues with taking other vaccines when traveling (had to take ones against rabies when going to the Philippines, that’s a death sentence if you catch that).

 

I think the thought of fully eradicating Covid is unrealistic, just like we can’t eradicate the flu…I feel instead of vaccines (which will only delay things rather than stop it) we’re better off coming up with a decent treatment to help those that do catch it and help bring up our immunity. As I said before I’m very suspicious of the ways things have been done. I don’t think our governments came up with any plans themselves but they’ve certainly used it to their advantage, I could believe there’s more going on that is kept from idiots like Boris and co though. Perhaps that is getting a bit far into the tin hat territory though

 

edit: some people could be allergic to ingredients in the vaccine or have issues with their blood clotting (which the vaccine could exasperate) so they’re recommended not to take it 

[MadManMike]

29 minutes ago, JT! said:

Realistically, it's not. Multiply 0.001 by 5 and a half million and you get a much bigger number. And then we're only talking about potential deaths, not people who're seriously ill, or will experience life long health issues.

The measures we've had since March 2020 based on a 0.001% chance of fatality is really not a proportionate response. And like I said, the way that Covid deaths are recorded isn't even accurate, so the percentage is even lower than that.

I'd bet that flu cases are a similar percentage, but we don't make thousands (millions?) of people unemployed for that. We don't cause HUGE scale mental health issues for that. The impact of Covid isn't just death.

If I get bored later, I'll run some statistics from the ONS website about flu.

[Ali C]

Just be a bit weary of holding too much opinion from looking at stats. I avoid stats because I’m not a statistician, it’s very easy to assume an answer from looking at them but often you need to know how to interpret them (which isn’t always easy) to get a more accurate outcome.

In this thread alone people have quoted numbers as meaning one result only to have someone else argue that they confirm something else.

Not saying don’t look at stats but just don’t rely on them too much unless you know the bigger picture

[MadManMike]

12 minutes ago, Ali C said:

Just be a bit weary of holding too much opinion from looking at stats. I avoid stats because I’m not a statistician, it’s very easy to assume an answer from looking at them but often you need to know how to interpret them (which isn’t always easy) to get a more accurate outcome.

In this thread alone people have quoted numbers as meaning one result only to have someone else argue that they confirm something else.

Not saying don’t look at stats but just don’t rely on them too much unless you know the bigger picture

Depends on the source mostly, but you can certainly spin a lot of stats to show what you want to see, but the ONS ones are pretty straightforward - number of cases, number of deaths.

In the mainstream media, they tend to just pick and choose the highest numbers, such as showing the hundreds of thousands of cases but ignoring the fact that hospitalisations are nowhere near as high as they were. A case isn't really significant if it's not a serious case. It's all printed to create fear and generate revenue, but so many people take it as fact and then panic.

[manuel]

I find Worldometer and the projections pretty good for bare stats and info

worrying projection - more beds in icu will be needed for this wave…

[JT!]

2 hours ago, MadManMike said:

I'd bet that flu cases are a similar percentage, but we don't make thousands (millions?) of people unemployed for that. We don't cause HUGE scale mental health issues for that. The impact of Covid isn't just death.

Sure we don't, because the flu doesn't spread like covid, if covid spread like the flu it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

[MadManMike]

1 hour ago, manuel said:

worrying projection - more beds in icu will be needed for this wave…

But why? Do the vaccines not work?

This is my main question, amongst all the other thoughts I've spouted. Why are we having two jabs if they don't work?

35 minutes ago, JT! said:

Sure we don't, because the flu doesn't spread like covid, if covid spread like the flu it wouldn't be that big of a deal.

It doesn't matter how it spreads though, what matters is the serious cases. Using what you posted above, we should lockdown for colds, because they spread like wildfire.

I totally get isolation and being careful, I'm not suggesting we all go out and kiss each other, I just don't see why the vaccine is being pushed so hard everywhere - basically mandatory without actually being mandatory - when it seemingly isn't that effective.

[marg26]

Not purely Covid related, but have you opted out of the NHS data that's going to be sold to 3rd parties yet?

https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/features/nhs-data-grab-gpdpr/

 

[Matt24.]

My understanding is the vaccines do work in a sense if they are designed to surpress the severity of the illness. So for example my dad who is on immunosuppressants from a kidney transplant is likely to be hospitalised from COVID even with the double jab but the jab gives him a fighting chance with treatment that he can beat it. I think the daily deaths currently being I think from a basic view a tenth of what they were at a similar rate of infections in the last wave demonstrate it helps. I guess the last lock downs have occurred as the NHS would have run out of beds to treat people unless they halt hospitalisations which the most effective way is stop socialisations with lockdowns.  This lock down they are gambling that they have enough beds to cope with the level of hospitalisations per infection in the population. But of course if the wave is over 10x the last in volume at its peak they’d run out. As far as I have read the NHS also administer care differently depending on where they are in the wave around how they use the beds which gives a bit of buffer. 
 

I received my 2nd jab today and a lot of my decision was to limit my risk to my dad. I don’t however believe the vaccine should be mandated, mostly my view on this is less to do with people around missing out on travelling and certain social situations and more to do with people who are advised not to vaccinate because of health reasons would miss out unfairly and probably are already in a position that as a minority they are under supported. 
 

edit: I guess the other thing seen today is that the highest infection rates and the spread is in the age group with the lowest take up of vaccinations 20-29 years. I also have noticed whilst out and about this week they are the quickest to socialise regularly and in large groups and least likely to wear masks now it isn’t mandatory which will also be fueling the wave but a lack of hospitalisations 

Edited July 22, 2021 by Matt24.

[manuel]

2 hours ago, MadManMike said:

But why? Do the vaccines not work?

This is my main question, amongst all the other thoughts I've spouted. Why are we having two jabs if they don't work?

so some people who’ve had two jabs will still get seriously ill. And more who’ve had one, and lots more who haven’t had any. The shear numbers of people we are allowing to be infected at the moment are making the numbers rise sharply. There are still millions of people who haven’t had a jab at all.

In the grand scheme it’s a small percentage dying or seriously ill for a long time but not sure that makes it ok. 
 

On the plus side on the projection the numbers tail off rapidly after the large peak. 

[MadManMike]

It's absolutely not OK, I hope my comments haven't been taken that way.

I'm still questioning things, definitely not trying to come across like I have all the answers. A lot of people aren't questioning anything, but I'm trying to make sense of it all because the last year and a half hasn't made much sense in many ways. 

[Matt24.]

I think we need people to question things and go against the grain not just give into everything directed so I wouldn’t worry so much about how people take it. We all have a right to an opinion and to discuss things and get our point across. I hate the phrase unprecedented as it is used an excuse to justify on occasion not thought through plans but I do believe that the last year and a half has caught most of the world off guard who just naively sleep walked into the pandemic as they just didn’t see it an imminent threat to an extent around this sort of stuff. You’d hope it is another 100 years before something like this occurs again but unfortunately because the nature of how governments change often over that period they will probably just as ill prepared as they’ll have moved on from this period and be disconnected from it. I guess as a government when the likelihood is you’ll be in power 8-12 years they don’t plan for pandemics they plan to tweak nhs, education etc. Now that is wrong and they have a responsibility on wider threats which I hope going forward more will be done to prepare.

[JT!]

19 hours ago, MadManMike said:

It doesn't matter how it spreads though, what matters is the serious cases. Using what you posted above, we should lockdown for colds, because they spread like wildfire.

Well we were comparing flu to covid, and that's all I was talking about. If, relatively speaking, covid and flu are similar in leading to a fatality, then obviously a large chunk of the population getting covid at once is the real danger. Colds aren't fatal so a non issue. Also, we know how to treat the flu, and we already have flu shots. Nether of which we had for covid.

So we lock everything down for covid so we don't have people in tents on football fields daisy chained up to ventilators 3 to 1.

[JT!]

19 hours ago, MadManMike said:

This is my main question, amongst all the other thoughts I've spouted. Why are we having two jabs if they don't work?

Because it's a variant?

[Ali C]

The thing with flu is that vaccines are just predictions on how the strain is going to mutate, that’s why it can’t be eradicated because it’s changing so much. We’ve got pretty good at working out what will work year on year with the flu and we hand out vaccines to the vulnerable because it can be deadly if your immune system is compromised.

 

That’s why I think working on trying to eradicate Covid is the wrong move…I agree that it’s a decent idea to try and lower the waves but I think working on a way to make people healthy again once they’ve caught it would be a good option, no rushed vaccines and people’s immunity would naturally increase from exposure and recovery.

 

I’ve just confirmed I can’t join Drop And Roll with some European shows in September due to Germany requiring a vaccine passport, quite annoying but I guess I made my bed and now I’vegotta sleep in it 

[JT!]

Ali, why not just get a non-mRNA vaccine? Like AstraZeneca or Novavax etc.

[manuel]

16 minutes ago, JT! said:

Ali, why not just get a non-mRNA vaccine? Like AstraZeneca or Novavax etc.

Not sure you can choose as an under 40 ? Think it’s pfizer or nothing

[Matt24.]

I would hope that as the pandemic starts to settle around the world which eventually it will, vaccine passports will become surplus to requirement. Hopefully not to far in the future so you can rejoin shows! 

[Ali C]

15 hours ago, JT! said:

Ali, why not just get a non-mRNA vaccine? Like AstraZeneca or Novavax etc.

My issue still is that there’s no historical data on any of these vaccines. Even if they are modified versions of past drugs they should still have years of data to prove their safety before they’re even considered to be released to market. The current vaccines are still less than a year old and I’m not comfortable putting something that young in my body, maybe I would if it was a truly awful illness that was guaranteed to cause life threatening issues but Covid seems to be a bit more random with how it effects you and despite causing some pretty horrible effects in quite a few people, many more seem to be just getting slightly ill and getting recovered (we have a supply of ivermectin we would hope aid our recovery if we did catch it) so to me being fit and healthy I feel weird about 100% putting a young drug with no historical data in my body compared with a random chance of getting a virus that then has a random chance of being serious or not

[marg26]

10 years ago I'd have probably felt similar. But got kids now, edging toward 50, and long covid sounds seriously shit and plenty of healthy people are now suffering due to that. I felt much more comfortable* risking the AZ x 2 vaccine than Covid.

*Actually I felt quite anxious when I went for my first jab. Thankfully I was in & out in under ten minutes. Just some mild start-of-a-cold like symptons and felt fine a day or two later.

 

Edited July 24, 2021 by marg26

[JT!]

2 hours ago, Ali C said:

My issue still is that there’s no historical data on any of these vaccines.

There's no historical data on Covid-19 either.

Covid only has about a year on the vaccines. Seems much more likely to me, regarding long term worries, that covid has waaaayyy more potential to f**k you up long term than any vaccine.